WIBTA If we forbid an obese girl to take part at a scouting trip to Norway?

A scout leader considers banning a 16-year-old girl from a Norway hiking trip. The two-week trip involves rigorous 10-20 km daily hikes, and the girl, weighing 130 kg, struggled during a test event, quitting after 5 km. Her inability to continue could halt her group, impacting everyone’s experience due to the scout “leave no one behind” ethos. The leader worries about fairness to others and safety risks.

Despite discussions with her parents urging daily training, the girl hasn’t prepared adequately, and pickup isn’t feasible daily. With the trip three weeks away, the leader fears her participation could ruin the group’s holiday. Reddit debates balancing inclusion with practicality. Would excluding her be unfair? How can leaders ensure safety without alienating scouts?

‘WIBTA If we forbid an obese girl to take part at a scouting trip to Norway?’

The trip involves intense hiking:

The girl struggled in a test event:

She hasn’t trained despite warnings:

The scout leader’s consideration to exclude the 16-year-old girl from the Norway trip prioritizes safety and fairness for the group. The demanding 10-20 km daily hikes require physical stamina, and her inability to complete a 5 km test hike with equipment indicates significant risks. If she cannot continue, the scout ethos of staying together could delay or derail the entire group’s experience, affecting seven other scouts and potentially compromising safety in remote areas.

Her lack of preparation, despite parental discussions, suggests she may not fully grasp the trip’s physical demands. The leader’s frustration is valid, as her participation could lead to health risks or group resentment, especially given the financial and emotional investment of other families (Kerr & Price, 2016). However, singling her out based on weight risks stigmatization, and her failure to train may reflect deeper motivational or health issues.

The leader must approach this sensitively to avoid alienating the girl or her family. Focusing on her test performance rather than her weight ensures the decision is objective. A retest could clarify her current fitness level, but her prior failure and lack of training suggest she’s unlikely to meet the standard. The leader’s responsibility is to ensure all scouts’ safety, which may necessitate her exclusion if she cannot keep up.

To address this, the leader should hold a transparent meeting with the girl and her parents, explaining the fitness requirements and safety concerns. Offering an alternative, less strenuous scout activity could maintain her involvement. Implementing a standard fitness test for all future trips would prevent similar conflicts. A compassionate approach, coupled with clear communication, balances inclusion with the group’s safety and enjoyment.

Here’s what Redditors had to say:

Reddit backs the leader’s concerns, urging safety-first decisions with spirited debate.

Many support excluding her for safety reasons:

Some suggest a retest for fairness:

Others emphasize group dynamics and fairness:

Some criticize the leader’s tone and professionalism:

The scout leader’s dilemma over excluding a 16-year-old girl from a strenuous Norway hiking trip weighs safety against inclusion. Her failure in a test hike and lack of training raise concerns about her health and the group’s experience, given the scout ethos of staying together.

Reddit supports prioritizing safety but urges sensitivity. Would the leader be wrong to exclude the girl from the trip? How can scout leaders balance inclusion with group safety? Share your thoughts below!